Question of the Day, August 20, 2010

[thebackupfreak]

As long as they're working towards a genuine point, and hopefully something more complicated than 'we should love each other' or 'we should murder each other less', then I feel that they can be useful. Otherwise, they can all too easily come across as tasteless. Another problem I have is that they can too easily become another homogenous boltgun metal bland shooter, and it is that lack of originality that I find the worst part

 

[icyneesan]

I find them enjoyable and even more so if they include how the developers feel about the current issue/event

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

assuming they remain tasteful and accurate.

Yeah, do you really think they'd show the Provos in a "tasteful and accurate" representation? Or Khmer Rouge?

I'll be very surprised if they're more than Persian Gulf Inferno.

 

[The Austin]

I'm against it until it's over. But guess what? The Iraq war ended 3 days ago!
VICTORY! YEAH!

 

[Hosker]

Hang on, don't you play as Taliban in the modern cod games?

 

[Thedayrecker]

It's neither, and anyone who tries to make it out to be one or the other has some sort of agenda.

 

[Erana]

Well, from a purely game-oriented perspective, how can I feel like I'm making a difference when I can turn on the TV channel and see that I'm having absolutely no effect? It ruins the illusion. In general though, I dislike war games. Well, there's always the occasional war game used as an education tool, but for me, games like Call of Duty are an absolute gaming turn-off for me.

 

[ArMartinez02]

honestly dont care, but they should try to make a ww1 game for crying out loud.!

 

[Denamic]

It's unoriginal, bland, and boring.
They're just games though, so don't give a shit.

 

[Anacortian]

I vote all of the above. It really depends on the particular game. A game based on current conflict could be any of those things (maybe all of those things).

 

[Dioxide20]

As long as it's as true to events as possible, then yes, it would be a responsible commentary. But since it's a videogame, developers have to omit certain parts to make it entertaining to play. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, because they really are just videogames.

People keep citing books as their counterargument, but they are forgetting that books, specifically history books, are as true to the actual events as possible. They are detailed accounts of almost all aspects of a battlefield, a videogame cannot be that.

 

[Psydney]

Anyone who says "It's just a game" is validating the often portrayed opinion that videogames are just things that children and socially stunted adults dick around with in their spare time.

Why does it matter? It's only moving pictures on a screen!
Why does it matter? It's only words on a page!
Why does it matter? It's only a game!

If it's tastefully done, then that's fine. If movies, books and television can do it, why the hell can't videogames do it?

I can think of one possible reason: people are used to the idea that movies, books and television aren't always "fun," but that isn't really true of games. I've read Orwell's 1984, watched the Band of Brothers TV series and movies like Jacob's Ladder and while I thought they were powerful experiences I couldn't really walk away saying I "enjoyed" myself. That almost seems antithetical to a game, where the mechanics have to be enjoyable or the player is likely to stop playing. So there is an uneasy tension between offering necessarily "fun" gameplay with "serious" themes, and adding in contemporary events may muddy the waters even more.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Nothing worng with it, as long as they're not skewing the evilness to an exreme or over epicing the good guys.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

What I'm saying is, don't consider it disrespectful until it proves itself to be.

True, I'm just curious on where they'd find information on the "Real" Taliban. Especially seeing as the Allied Military don't have it.

 

[Tiny116]

I abstained from the poll,
There wasn't an option that really matched my opinion. Honestly I don't see how just because "it's a game means it doesn't matter," when it does. Especially since in this day and age game companies have the technology and resources to make for a much more realistic experience.
It's going to be more of a moral problem because it is a game based on a conflict that is currently happening, not on past conflicts that are not fresh in the majority of peoples memory. This is what I think is where the media outcry is coming from.
I personally don't feel comfortable with the idea of a game based on current conflicts, not because I have the option to play as a member of the Taliban, but because of it being a conflict which has no end in sight.
However there are lots of conversations on this forum which talk about games being a form of storytelling, and storytelling is important to remember those who fought for their countries and their people and their beliefs so that we remember, and respect those who have the courage to put themselves on the front line.

The bottom line in my opinion is this.
If you don't like the morals or idea's behind the game Don't buy it it's an option to buy the game not a requirement. And if you are a parent and don't want you child to play the game don't buy it for them It's really very simple.
Will I buy the game? I honestly haven't decided yet.